Foremost on my Mind: A Word Fitly Written

   

I've been doing this gig for close to seven years. Never missed deadline, although it has been nip and tuck a few times. I've been asked many times how I come up with such random, fresh, and occasionally rational columns.

The short answer is “I don't know.” (So is the long answer.)

But I do have an idea that might give you a clue. You see, as long as there's something sad here, or goofy there, or as long as there's something homey and upbeat that I can write about, I will always have fodder for the column. And then there's always the cows and the kids.

I am a common man writing to common people. I deal with life as I see it, not as I don't see it—or pretend it. I take a common sense approach and put a creative spin on it (no, Maurice, that's not exaggerating), with the sincere intent to make it more readable.

My goal each week is to stimulate you, through a couple of ways: The first is through reflection and recollection, as you pause to gather your thoughts on a busy day. It's a crazy world we live in, and I would like to think that “Foremost on my Mind” is a bit of an oasis for your soul. It is for me, as I write it; it's a real emotional outlet for me. I get to put out in front of me (via the keyboard) what's inside of me. Some people do that with Facebook, but that's a different medium for this old boy; hopefully, this column is a lot deeper, I trust.

There's a lot of written junk out there, and while many may disagree with my approach or philosophy to life, I trust that my comments are reasonable and rational, wholesome and wholehearted. I have never once sought to irritate anyone with my Christian worldview. There are many areas where we can disagree (let's try faith, marriage, sex, habits, for starters), but it's the mark of a free society to agree to disagree. Such freedom does not exist in the Iraqs, Syrias, North Koreas, and Albanias of the world.

We should cherish the freedom of the press, among others, and not abuse it.

The second way is at a lighter level, namely, humour and worthsmithing. (Methinks that last word is a new word.) But the key is I communicated to you with a word that we both understand. As committed to good writing and grammar skills as I am, I do allow myself to break the rules.

(Note to Cherry Coulee students that I teach: Please disregard the above paragraph—or I'll flunk you.)

I think communication is more than words, but words happen to be my personal speciality. In a recent writing class, we came up with close to twenty-five ways to communicate effectively. For example, smoke signals and broken branches are very effective ways to get a message out, but there are some major logistical problems; ditto for telegrams, Morse code, and sign language.

One of my burdens (maybe “visions” is a happier word) when it comes to this column is to enjoy words --not so much as toys but as tools. We use tools to create things, to put out there something that was a mere shadow or ideas. So it is with words I have come across many people who fail to write now because they failed at writing in school then. I feel badly for the bondage they feel. They feel hampered in life because of this, but at least they appreciate others who can write well.

Then there are those who, from a completely different generation, fail to write because they have been raised in a cyber world. They text and tweet, but fail to effectively communicate to anyone other than those who understand their particular vernacular. Whether it's chronic laziness, poor schooling, or low expectations, I cannot say.

They cheat at communication, using only letters (not full words), slang, and incomplete thoughts.

What I can say is that it is a tragedy that too many in my kids' generation cannot communicate clearly with ordinary words. And that goes beyond the cyber medium: Even trying to converse with many of them just using ordinary words is a stretch.

My focus in this column is to write well, not speak well, though both are crucial to success at any level.

Whether you feel I speak for you or whether you simply appreciate good healthy prose, it has been a privilege to do this column. Your kind remarks over the years have been further motivation to write this column.

I trust it has indeed been an oasis for your soul. It certainly has been for mine.

Foremost on my Mind: S. O. S. for Parents

A couple of Internet news clips grabbed my attention recently, and I want to share them with you. I'm sure you've seem them both.

It involves girls—the pro-active teen type, if you know what I mean—so if you feel the following material is for a more mature audience, maybe you should plug your ears.

A little background is in order here: These are very difficult times for parents these days, especially for those who feel a moral and ethical responsibility towards raising their children—kind of in the old fashioned way, you know. It seems so much is against parents—movies/DVDs, Internet, school, government, courts, and even the church, believe it or not.

Somewhere in recent decades we seem to have lost our way as a nation, especially in supporting and/or modelling sound parenting skills. Many good parents have been stripped of their authority and relieved of their leadership they once had--and still should have.

If “stripped and relieved” of their parental duties is too strong, let me try another angle: They have been discouraged from training and teaching, mentoring and monitoring, their own kids. Again, movies/DVDs, Internet, school, government, courts, and the church have usurped both the authority and leadership of parents, leaving them on the child-rearing sidelines.

Let me stick my neck out here: A society-raised child will never match what a parent-raised child can become. (Obviously, I'm referring strictly to good parents here. I am aware of the few exceptions where good homes can produce bad kids, and good kids can come out of bad homes.)

That's quite a wordy background; sorry for that torrent, but it carefully sets up the rest of the column. You see, in these cases in the USA, two sets of families took a stand against the wanton behaviour of their daughters—and the news of the parents' actions was presented as something good, right, and positive. I was both shocked and relieved at the response of both the courts and the public.

In the first case, a daughter sued her parents because they took a stand against her reckless, immoral lifestyle. They had cut off the girl's allowance because of her behaviour, so she sued them. Interestingly enough, the court sided with the folks.

In the second case, a mom came across a young man in her home who was there at the invitation of her daughter. (And no, Maurice, they weren't playing checkers in her bedroom.) Momma held the young man in question (allegedly eight years older than the teen) at bay with a gun until the cops arrived.

Beyond this feel-good story, the comment threads on the news blog were in support of the single mom (the court of popular opinion?), even suggesting they would have done even more to the young man--something about “rewarding” him where sun didn't shine.

Parents have both the right and the responsibility to raise their children teaching them morals and ethics. Kids reared in these sorts of homes have a better chance of becoming moral and ethical citizens in any given society. We need more of this, not less. We must encourage this vision of parenthood.

Tragically, your average sit-com, classroom, magazine, and Internet tends to undermine this view.

I am not sure when the shift came into the Americas, whereby the home was supplanted as the bedrock of the culture—maybe 30 to 40 years ago. Working with a house metaphor, you might say that the home was once the foundation of the society; now it is a mere lawn ornament.

Because this column focuses more as a lighter commentary of life, I don't feel I have the liberty to plummet the depths of cultural woes and trends. However, it doesn't stop me; just slows me down.

Parents who have had their parental rights stripped from them—or worse, those who have willfully chosen to turn their kids over to an institution or two to raise them—are really victims in this lose-lose scenario. Kids need to be raised in loving, stable homes (two-parent or single-parent), where they learn to respect authority, serve others, and receive affirmation.

Without trying to over-simplify issues, kids raised by a good moral and ethical parent (or two) will have a positive impact on their culture. And we need to support every mother and/or father who are committed to doing this.

But if need be, cutting off someone's allowance or pointing a rifle at someone's belly could be a great back up plan.

Foremost on my Mind: The ABC's of War

Cousin Reggie, he of Big Toe, Saskatchewan fame, sent me a telegraph the other day. No, that's not a typo: Reggie is just a little behind the times. Every third word in said communication was “Stop,” but the only person who didn't stop was Reggie himself.

If you think that's bad, you should see his velvet bell bottoms.

He went on and on about some infantile alphabet game he thinks he invented. Goes something like this: List all the boys' names you can think of in alphabetical order; do that again with girls' name; then sports teams, flowers, cars, and so on. Sounds like someone needs a life.

I countered dearest Reggie with doing the countries of the world in alphabetical order, but this time with a twist. I suggested to him that we list all the countries in the world that are currently at war. “War” as in killing each other, as well as the innocent citizens caught in the crossfire.

Let's see: A is for Afghanistan, B is for Bali, C is for Central African Republic, E is for El Salvador, G is for Guatemala, I is for Iraq, Iran, and India, M is for Myanmar and Mexico, N is for Niger, S is for Syria and Southern Sudan, U is for Ukraine, Y is for Yemen...

Funny how a little trivial game can erupt into a serious reality check.

It puts a squabble over a fence into perspective, doesn't it? Mind you, when there is a brawl at an area hockey game, one gets an inkling of what's happening out there in the real world.

People fight on a big scale (factions within a country) for the same reason that there are schoolyard fisticuffs, why mom and dad bicker, or children argue among themselves. Pride, turf, misunderstand-

ing, and insecurity are some of the factors. But for the most part, people fight at any level because they are self-centred morons. And I may be one of biggest of them all.

Keep in mind that we're not discussing self-defense here. I have a right to defend my people and family with the appropriate weaponry (tank, no; rifle, yes). I also have a right to defend my neighbour, if he or she is being assaulted wherever and whenever.

Talking things out, of course, is the best ticket to working things out. In a semi-civilized culture such as the United States of America, despite all the horrific flaws in their political system, progress is made through talking, voting, compromising, waiting, lobbying--and talking some more.

Pouting and punching are not options—no matter how tempting it is to some.

If you cannot grasp the atrocities in Syria or Central African Republic, or the senselessness of Russia invading the Ukraine, or the indiscriminate suicide bombings in Iraq and Pakistan, you're normal. If you can, I suggest you have some issues.

But to try to understand what people do to each other, even under the rules of war (and there are some, you know), just take a step back and look into two jurisdictions close at hand: your home and your heart. And if you think I'm sermonizing, you're wrong. This is not a pulpit, we are not in church, and I have no mandate to sermonize in a secular column.

However, if what I say sounds like a sermon, it's only because the source of all right sermons is likewise the source all right solutions--'nough said.

I get agitated over the bickering that can take place in my own home, but I get alarmed when I feel it in my own heart. Of the millions and billions that have lived on Planet Earth over these past few thousand years, we can speak to a definitive pattern: For starters, we're all the same underneath, almost all (if not all) our differences are learned (some wags call that “culture”), and we tend to be self-centred.

So when masses of self-centred people of one culture meet up with masses of self-centred people from another culture, it's not clearly not a family reunion. It's generally called war, sometimes even genocide.

A little simplistic for you? I agree, but I have put it into a common man's framework of reference. Next time you get really bugged by what is happening in those ABC's of world geography, and feel so helpless to do anything, try the following:

Work harder at training your kids to get along and work out their differences peacefully; they could easily become the peacemakers or peace-breakers of tomorrow. And, model it yourself: that's part of the cost of leadership.

I think even Cousin Reggie would agree.